4 ms·

Violence as a contagious disease is a concept that isn't going to fare well in certain circles (of proponents of open borders, migration etc.). More research sh

Violence as a contagious disease is a concept that isn't going to fare well in certain circles (of proponents of open borders, migration etc.). More research should be done in this area, if possible.

pjc50 7y ago
A border is a structure that requires violence to maintain.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  It requires violence on behalf of the authorities sometimes to keep violent intruders out, just like it's required to catch criminals or deflect a hostile army's attack. That doesn't make it bad. In practice, authorities exert no violence at borders e.g. in most European countries, even the threat of violent action is very low nowadays - that's why they are easily overrun.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    "Overrun" is a very extreme word to use here? Are you trying to suggest "invasion"? > violent intruders Very few of the people crossing the border are themselves "violent".
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > "Overrun" is a very extreme word to use here? Are you trying to suggest "invasion"? It's an appropriate word for what happened at several borders, fences that were erected were torn down violently and hundreds of people ran over them. What word would you rather use? https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fluechtlinge-stuermen-zaun-an-griechisch-mazedonischer-grenze https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fluechtlinge-stuermen-... (this is from a failed attempt)
    - michaelt 7y ago
      Speaking as a third-party reader, when you assert that borders require violence to maintain, then you disagree with lazyjones saying there are sometimes violent intruders, it leaves me confused about what argument you're trying to make?
- tomp 7y ago
  I really like what Peter Theil once said (paraphrased): > A (successful) state contains violence, in both senses of the word. (The two meanings of the word “contains” being “includes” and “limits”.)
- larnmar 7y ago
  Well if we want to be like that, then everything requires violence to maintain. The Empire State Building takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might carry away all the rocks. Your local library takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might burn all the books. Your own life requires violence to maintain, because only the threat of violence from the state prevents someone from killing and eating you.
  - krapp 7y ago
    That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. And we do want to be like that, in theory, because violence cannot be avoided entirely in human interactions, and because violence as a regulated market is more humane than violence as a free market, and because that violence in the former case is mostly abstracted into the bureaucracy. For many people in a modern society the closest they'll ever come to seeing the "violence inherent to the system" is maybe a speeding ticket or misdemeanor jail time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > And we do want to be like that, in theory One problem is that the whole illusion of power a government requires to operate falls apart when this promise isn't kept in practice and a large number of people become aware of this failure through media. Perhaps the news and following public outcries about e.g. police violence in the US serve a (second) purpose.
      - krapp 7y ago
        Yes, in exchange for the people ceding their right to violence to the state, states are supposed to be trustworthy and neutral arbiters who follow their own rules and are subject to the will of the people. Both the people and the state are supposed to be limited in their power. When that falls apart, and people decide to no longer participate in the fiction that is civil society, things can get ugly.
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  Same for property rights. So get rid of property rights? But then that would have to include sexual access to other people, which would also be violence.
  - vertex-four 7y ago
    There's a difference between personal property and private property. It isn't violence to use a building that nobody else is using, and it is violence to force people to pay for that use - otoh, it is violence to use the home someone else is living in, take the food they eat, etc. The equivocation of personal and private property only serves to legitimise a system of rentseekers and landlords.
    - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
      That's just gibberish designed to justify theft. A community (like a nation) can also have shared property, and defend it with a border.

Violence as a contagious disease is a concept that isn't going to fare well in certain circles (of proponents of open borders, migration etc.). More research should be done in this area, if possible.

pjc50 7y ago

A border is a structure that requires violence to maintain.

lazyjones 7y ago
It requires violence on behalf of the authorities sometimes to keep violent intruders out, just like it's required to catch criminals or deflect a hostile army's attack. That doesn't make it bad. In practice, authorities exert no violence at borders e.g. in most European countries, even the threat of violent action is very low nowadays - that's why they are easily overrun.
- pjc50 7y ago
  "Overrun" is a very extreme word to use here? Are you trying to suggest "invasion"? > violent intruders Very few of the people crossing the border are themselves "violent".
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > "Overrun" is a very extreme word to use here? Are you trying to suggest "invasion"? It's an appropriate word for what happened at several borders, fences that were erected were torn down violently and hundreds of people ran over them. What word would you rather use? https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fluechtlinge-stuermen-zaun-an-griechisch-mazedonischer-grenze https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fluechtlinge-stuermen-... (this is from a failed attempt)
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Speaking as a third-party reader, when you assert that borders require violence to maintain, then you disagree with lazyjones saying there are sometimes violent intruders, it leaves me confused about what argument you're trying to make?
tomp 7y ago
I really like what Peter Theil once said (paraphrased): > A (successful) state contains violence, in both senses of the word. (The two meanings of the word “contains” being “includes” and “limits”.)
larnmar 7y ago
Well if we want to be like that, then everything requires violence to maintain. The Empire State Building takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might carry away all the rocks. Your local library takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might burn all the books. Your own life requires violence to maintain, because only the threat of violence from the state prevents someone from killing and eating you.
- krapp 7y ago
  That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. And we do want to be like that, in theory, because violence cannot be avoided entirely in human interactions, and because violence as a regulated market is more humane than violence as a free market, and because that violence in the former case is mostly abstracted into the bureaucracy. For many people in a modern society the closest they'll ever come to seeing the "violence inherent to the system" is maybe a speeding ticket or misdemeanor jail time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > And we do want to be like that, in theory One problem is that the whole illusion of power a government requires to operate falls apart when this promise isn't kept in practice and a large number of people become aware of this failure through media. Perhaps the news and following public outcries about e.g. police violence in the US serve a (second) purpose.
    - krapp 7y ago
      Yes, in exchange for the people ceding their right to violence to the state, states are supposed to be trustworthy and neutral arbiters who follow their own rules and are subject to the will of the people. Both the people and the state are supposed to be limited in their power. When that falls apart, and people decide to no longer participate in the fiction that is civil society, things can get ugly.
pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
Same for property rights. So get rid of property rights? But then that would have to include sexual access to other people, which would also be violence.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  There's a difference between personal property and private property. It isn't violence to use a building that nobody else is using, and it is violence to force people to pay for that use - otoh, it is violence to use the home someone else is living in, take the food they eat, etc. The equivocation of personal and private property only serves to legitimise a system of rentseekers and landlords.
  - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
    That's just gibberish designed to justify theft. A community (like a nation) can also have shared property, and defend it with a border.